Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Osiris revisited: Confirming a solar metallicity and low C/O in HD 209458b

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read HD 209458b's atmosphere appears solar in metallicity ([M/H] = 0.10) yet extremely carbon-poor (C/O = 0.054), implying strong oxygen enrichment during formation.

desk verdict Careful HST re-reduction and solid H2O/CO2 detections, but the headline C/O and metallicity rest on a disfavoured CO prior; accept with major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16232 v1 pith:YGGZUQO5 submitted 2025-06-19 astro-ph.EP

N. Bachmann , L. Kreidberg , P. Mollière , D. Deming , S.-M. Tsai This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords HD209458bhotJupitertransmissionspectroscopyatmosphericretrievalcarbon-to-oxygenratiowaterabundanceBayesianmodelaveragingJWSTNIRCam
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper re-reduces the original HST/WFC3 transmission spectrum of the hot Jupiter HD 209458b, explicitly modelling the wavelength-dependent instrument systematics, and combines it with archival JWST/NIRCam data to run free-chemistry atmospheric retrievals over 1.0–5.1 μm. The authors argue that the much-debated water abundance is close to solar, at 0.95+0.35−0.17 times solar, with CO2 also near-solar, and that the data prefer a cloudy atmosphere over a clear one by 3.6σ. Adding a ground-based high-resolution measurement of CO as a prior shifts the inferred composition to solar metallicity ([M/H] = 0.10+0.41−0.40) and an extremely low carbon-to-oxygen ratio (C/O = 0.054+0.080−0.034, with a 3σ upper limit of 0.454). If these values hold, HD 209458b formed with strong oxygen enrichment and carbon depletion, matching a formation story that involves pebble accretion and inward migration.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by free-chemistry atmospheric retrievals that do not impose equilibrium chemistry, run on a jointly fit HST and JWST transmission spectrum spanning 1.0–5.1 μm, with a grey cloud deck at a retrieved pressure. Model uncertainty is handled with Bayesian model averaging over five cloud treatments, which widens the abundance uncertainties to include cloud assumptions. The load-bearing element is the 'cloudy + CO prior' retrieval, which puts a narrow prior on CO from a ground-based high-resolution detection, because CO is invisible in the low-resolution JWST band (masked by clouds and water). Without that prior the same data give a very metal-poor result ([M/H] = −1.35) and an even lower C/O (1.3 × 10−3), and the prior-based model is formally disfavoured by 2.6σ; the prior is what produces the solar-metallicity, carbon-depleted composition.

What would settle it

A higher-resolution or longer-wavelength observation that resolves the CO band at 4.4–5.2 μm would settle the claim: detecting CO at near-solar abundance would push C/O up toward the stellar value of 0.47, and a retrieval without the CO prior that recovers CO directly from the space-based spectrum would make the low C/O claim unnecessary. A simpler check is to rerun the cloudy retrieval with a more flexible cloud model and the CO prior removed to see whether CO features emerge.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that HD 209458b's atmosphere contains near-solar water and carbon dioxide and overall has a solar-like metallicity with a very low carbon-to-oxygen ratio. H2O and CO2 are the only molecules firmly detected, at high significance, and clouds are preferred over a clear atmosphere. Bayesian model averaging over five cloud treatments gives water at 0.95+0.35−0.17 times solar and CO2 at 0.94+0.16−0.09 times solar. From the retrieved abundances, and only with a CO abundance prior taken from ground-based high-resolution spectroscopy, the composition is [M/H] = 0.10+0.41−0.40 and C/O = 0.054+0.080−0.034, with a 3σ upper limit of 0.454, below the stellar C/O of 0.47. The authors read this as a strong enrichment in oxygen and depletion in carbon during the planet's formation.

Load-bearing premise

The headline C/O and metallicity rest on the assumption that the ground-based CO abundance used as a prior is correct; without it, the same data prefer a very metal-poor, even more carbon-depleted atmosphere, and the model that carries the paper's conclusion is formally disfavoured by the data's own model comparison.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Earlier sub-solar water detections from HST data alone are not robust; the re-reduced spectrum combined with JWST puts H2O within 1σ of solar.
  • CO can be undetectable in a low-resolution JWST spectrum even when it is strongly present, because clouds and water occult its bands; space-based low-resolution spectra alone can miss a major carbon reservoir.
  • The inferred C/O of 0.054 is below the stellar value of 0.47, which the authors connect to oxygen-rich solid accretion and inward migration during formation.
  • Bayesian evidence alone is an unsafe criterion for choosing between cloud models of exoplanets; Bayesian model averaging better captures the true model uncertainty.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the CO prior holds, other hot Jupiters whose low-resolution spectra yield extremely low C/O should be re-examined with ground-based CO measurements; some reported low C/O values may be an artefact of the same CO invisibility.
  • A direct extension of this work would be to predict that higher-resolution JWST observations of the 4.4–5.2 μm region will either detect CO (falsifying the grey-cloud suppression) or confirm that clouds hide it, testing the formation interpretation.
  • The strong sensitivity of C/O to the cloud prescription and the CO prior implies that formation-history inferences from single-planet C/O values deserve larger error bars than the quoted posteriors until CO is measured directly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a new reduction of the original HST/WFC3 transmission spectrum of HD 209458b using the PACMAN pipeline, with a careful treatment of wavelength-dependent instrument systematics, and combines it with archival JWST/NIRCam data (Xue et al. 2024). Free-chemistry retrievals over 1.0–5.1 μm robustly detect H2O and CO2 (both >7σ), find a 3.6σ preference for a grey cloud deck over a clear atmosphere, and, after Bayesian model averaging, report H2O and CO2 abundances consistent with solar values within 1σ. In Section 4.5, the authors add a CO abundance prior from ground-based high-resolution spectroscopy (Brogi & Line 2019) to a cloudy retrieval and derive [M/H] = 0.10^{+0.41}_{-0.40} and C/O = 0.054^{+0.080}_{-0.034} with a 3σ upper limit of 0.454. They interpret these as evidence for solar metallicity and strong oxygen enrichment / carbon depletion during formation, and compare their results with the VULCAN 1D photochemistry model.

Significance. If the robust H2O and CO2 detections and the Bayesian-model-averaged abundances stand, the paper provides a valuable, high-quality benchmark for the atmospheric composition of HD 209458b and helps resolve earlier contradictory water-abundance claims. The careful re-reduction of the WFC3 data, the systematic exploration of cloud models, the use of Bayesian model averaging, and the explicit comparison with the VULCAN 1D model are methodological strengths, and the paper is commendably transparent about the model dependence of its results. However, the headline claims of solar metallicity and very low C/O are not as robust as the abstract and title suggest: they are derived from a single retrieval that is disfavoured by the paper's own model comparison, and the CO non-detection on which the low C/O largely rests is acknowledged as potentially an artefact of clouds. As it stands, the paper would be a solid joint retrieval study demonstrating prior and model sensitivity, but the 'confirming a low C/O' claim is not supported by the data alone.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Sect. 4.5 and Table 6] The paper's central claim—solar metallicity [M/H]=0.10 and very low C/O=0.054—is taken exclusively from the 'cloudy + CO prior' retrieval, but the paper's own evidence comparison disfavours this model. The logarithmic Bayesian evidence for that retrieval is 365.4±0.2, compared to 366.3±0.0 for the cloudy retrieval with the broad CO prior (a difference of 2.6σ as stated in Sect. 4.5), and compared to 367.8±0.1 for the best model containing only H2O and CO2. Without the CO prior, the same data yield [M/H]=-1.35^{+1.25}_{-0.73} and C/O=1.33^{+4.79}_{-0.70}×10^{-3}. The abstract and conclusions present the prior-based values as the confirmed result, while the Discussion (Sect. 5) concedes that CO is not detected and that the apparent CO depletion may be an artefact of clouds. This is a load-bearing inconsistency: the headline claim is not robust to the model choices documented in the paper. The authors should either present the C/O and metallicity as explicitly conditional on the CO prior and cloud model, or provide a principled statistical argument for preferring the disfavoured model for inference.
  2. [Sect. 4.5 and Fig. A.5] The 'prior on the CO abundance from ground-based measurements' is implemented as a uniform prior on log mass fraction U(-3.5, 0.0), rather than as a measurement-informed posterior or likelihood. The retrieved log χCO = -4.15 lies close to the lower edge of this prior after conversion to volume mixing ratio (approximately -4.6), and well below the centre of the prior range; the data are therefore still pulling CO down against the prior. The phrase in the abstract, 'Combining these values with a prior on the CO abundance from ground-based measurements,' overstates the support the ground-based measurement provides for the specific C/O=0.054. The authors should report the Brogi & Line (2019) CO abundance value explicitly, and either use a properly informative Gaussian prior centred on that measurement or explain why a wide uniform range is being labelled 'informed'.
  3. [Sect. 4.5, Sect. 5, and Fig. 11] The low C/O is driven almost entirely by non-detections and upper limits: the 3σ upper limit on CO is log χCO = -3.26 (Sect. 4.4), CH4 is unconstrained, and the paper states that CO features are 'obscured by stronger water absorption' and 'hidden beneath the cloud deck,' concluding that the apparent CO depletion 'may be an artefact of the clouds.' Because the CO abundance is not measured, the derived C/O = 0.054 is an upper-limit-driven value, not a detected carbon depletion. The formation interpretation in Sect. 5—'strong enrichment in oxygen and depletion in carbon'—is therefore not supported by the data. The authors should propagate the CO upper limit through the C/O calculation in a way that transparently shows the non-detection, or remove the formation claim until CO is detected or constrained.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sect. 4.7] The text reads 'our caluclated C/O'; 'caluclated' should be 'calculated'.
  2. [Notes to Tables A.2 and A.3] The note 'log (Pcloud) is the the cloud base pressure' contains a duplicated article; it appears in both tables.
  3. [Fig. 8 caption] The caption states that 'The dashed spectra are best fits using the more complex cloud model described in Sect. 4.3,' but the figure legend does not clearly distinguish the 'complex clouds' and 'complex patchy clouds' variants; please make the line styles explicit.
  4. [Sect. 2.2] The description of the recreated Deming et al. (2013) reduction is clear, but the statement that the Gaussian convolution 'was the crucial step to avoid the zig-zag pattern' could be better quantified: consider showing the pattern amplitude before and after convolution as a function of wavelength.
  5. [Sect. 4.2] In the text, the significances for the non-detected species are quoted as 'from 2.8σ to 3.0σ' and the Bayesian evidence disfavours their inclusion; please verify these sigma values are consistent with the Bayes factors in Table 6, since the table lists Zref/Z values that do not all map to those integers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the headline C/O uses an external ground-based CO prior, and the retrieved H2O/CO2 abundances are data-driven; the VULCAN comparison is a post-hoc consistency check, not an input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: newly reduced HST/WFC3 spectrum + archival JWST/NIRCam spectrum -> free-chemistry petitRADTRANS retrievals -> posterior distributions for H2O, CO2, CO -> [M/H] and C/O. The 'cloudy + CO prior' retrieval (Sect. 4.5) imposes a CO abundance prior taken from Brogi & Line (2019), an independent ground-based high-resolution measurement; the paper does not fit that prior to the space-based data, and it explicitly reports that this model is disfavoured by 2.6sigma relative to the broader-prior cloudy model. The resulting C/O therefore is prior-influenced, but that is model dependence, not circularity: no equation defines the output in terms of its own fitted parameters, and the paper is transparent that without the prior the values are very different. The VULCAN comparison (Sect. 4.7) is also not load-bearing: VULCAN is run using the retrieved C/O as an input, and the agreement of H2O/CO2 upper limits is presented as a consistency check rather than as evidence for the low C/O. The reported detections and BMA abundances for H2O and CO2 are driven by the combined spectra. No self-citation chain, uniqueness claim, or ansatz-via-citation is used to force the central result. Score 0: no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central claim rests on fitted molecular abundances, a grey cloud deck assumption, an isothermal P-T profile, and an external CO prior. The CO prior is the most consequential input, because it changes the derived C/O by orders of magnitude.

free parameters (6)
  • CO abundance prior = uniform U(-3.5, 0.0) log mass fraction
    Prior from ground-based CO detection (Brogi & Line 2019); drives the headline C/O and [M/H].
  • Cloud deck pressure log(Pcloud) = -2.84 +0.40/-0.40 (cloudy+CO prior model)
    Fitted grey cloud top; strongly affects retrieved abundances.
  • H2O volume mixing ratio = log chi_H2O = -2.80 +0.42/-0.41 (cloudy+CO prior)
    Free chemistry fit; central abundance claim.
  • CO2 volume mixing ratio = log chi_CO2 = -6.16 +0.38/-0.39
    Free chemistry fit; central abundance claim.
  • Temperature T = 1094 +112/-119 K
    Isothermal retrieval parameter; correlated with scale height.
  • Gaussian smoothing FWHM = 4 pixels
    Chosen in data reduction to remove zig-zag pattern; affects the spectrum.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Atmosphere is isothermal (Sect. 3.1)
    Assumed P-T structure; if wrong, abundances and cloud pressure shift.
  • domain assumption Clouds are grey and fully opaque at P > Pcloud
    Simple cloud model; more complex clouds change water abundance substantially.
  • domain assumption H/He mass fractions 0.74/0.24 and solar reference abundances
    Used for mean molecular weight and solar scaling; standard but not derived here.
  • domain assumption Ground-based CO detection by Brogi & Line (2019) is reliable
    Used as a prior to derive C/O; if the detection or interpretation is wrong the headline result changes.
  • domain assumption Planet mass and radius from Bonomo et al. (2017)
    Fixed inputs or narrow priors; small errors do not affect the main result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Osiris revisited: Confirming a solar metallicity and low C/O in HD 209458b." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YGGZUQO5

@misc{pith2026250616232,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Osiris revisited: Confirming a solar metallicity and low C/O in HD 209458b},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YGGZUQO5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16232}
}
abstract

HD 209458b is the prototypical hot Jupiter and one of the best targets available for precise atmosphere characterisation. Now that spectra from both Hubble Space Telescope (HST) and James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) are available, we can reveal the atmospheric properties in unprecedented detail. In this study, we perform a new data reduction and analysis of the original HST/WFC3 spectrum, accounting for the wavelength dependence of the instrument systematics that was not considered in previous analyses. This allows us to precisely and robustly measure the much-debated H$_2$O abundance in HD 209458b's atmosphere. We combine the newly reduced spectrum with archival JWST/NIRCam data and run free chemistry atmospheric retrievals over the 1.0 - 5.1 $\mu$m wavelength range, covering possible features of multiple absorbing species, including CO$_2$, CO, CH$_4$, NH$_3$, HCN, Na, SO$_2$, and H$_2$S. We detect H$_2$O and CO$_2$ robustly at above 7 $\sigma$ significance, and find a 3.6 $\sigma$ preference for cloudy models compared to a clear atmosphere. For all other absorbers we tested, only upper limits of abundance can be measured. We use Bayesian model averaging to account for a range of different assumptions about the cloud properties, resulting in a water volume mixing ratio of $0.95^{+0.35}_{-0.17} \:\times$ solar and a carbon dioxide abundance of $0.94^{+0.16}_{-0.09} \:\times$ solar. Both results are consistent with solar values and comparable to predictions from the VULCAN 1D photochemistry model. Combining these values with a prior on the CO abundance from ground-based measurements, we derive an overall atmospheric composition comparable to solar metallicity of $\mathrm{[M/H]} = 0.10^{+0.41}_{-0.40}$ and very low C/O of $0.054^{+0.080}_{-0.034}$ with a 3 $\sigma$ upper limit of 0.454. This indicates a strong enrichment in oxygen and depletion in carbon during HD 209458b's formation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16232 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. White light curve of HD 209458 b’s HST/WFC3 transit with the best-fit transit model (upper left panel) and residuals of the fit (upper right panel), as well as the spectral light curves (lower left panel; offset) with fit transit models and the corresponding residuals (lower right panel). 3.1. Model and parameter setup Several previous studies, e.g. Madhusudhan et al. (2014), Ben￾neke (2015), Barstow et al. (2017), … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Variation of the fitted "model_ramp" parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of HST/WFC3 transmission spectra with (blue) and without (green) applying the additional Gaussian con￾volution (see Sect. 2.2) in the data reduction. Both spectra use the "model_ramp" model. The green spectrum without the ad￾ditional smoothing step shows a "zig-zag" pattern of alternating transit depths between subsequent exposures. The grey spectrum is from Deming et al. (2013) for comparison. overview o… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of HST/WFC3 transmission spectra for three different data reduction and fitting methods for HD 209458 b. The blue spectrum uses exponential functions to fit the systematics at the beginning of each orbit ("model_ramp" fit), whereas the green one assumes wave…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of best-fit spectra with different cloud as￾sumptions. The retrieval uses the "model_ramp" fit HST/WFC3 spectrum (grey dots). All three retrievals include all tested ab￾sorbing species (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of best-fit cloud-free spectra for retrievals of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of best-fit spectra for retrievals of the joint HST-JWST spectrum using di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of best-fit spectra for retrievals of the joint HST-JWST spectrum using di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Bayesian model averaged posterior distributions for H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Contribution of the opacities of line-absorbing species to the transmission spectrum. The best-fit spectrum shows the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Metallicity (left) and C/O (right) distribution calculated from the posterior distributions of the cloudy+CO prior retrieval. The black solid lines indicate the median, and the dashed lines depict the ±34.1% confidence regions. The dotted line shows the 3σ upper limit…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison of the cloudy+CO prior retrieval results with the VULCAN 1D photochemical kinetics model by Tsai et al. (2021) (solid lines) and thermochemical equilibrium abundances (dashed lines). The dots represent the volume mixing ratios from our retrievals (with erro…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The watery atmosphere of HD~209458~b revealed by joint $K$- and $L$-band high-resolution spectroscopy

    astro-ph.EP 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Joint K- and L-band KPIC spectra of HD 209458 b yield an H2O lower limit and stringent upper limits on CO, CH4, NH3, H2S, and HCN, implying C/O < 1e-3.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    B., Mansfield, M., et al

    Ahrer, E.-M., Stevenson, K. B., Mansfield, M., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 653

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Azzam, A. A. A., Tennyson, J., Yurchenko, S. N., & Naumenko, O. V . 2016, MNRAS, 460, 4063

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    K., Aigrain, S., Irwin, P

    Barstow, J. K., Aigrain, S., Irwin, P. G. J., & Sing, D. K. 2017, ApJ, 834, 50

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    J., Crouzet, N., Cubillos, P

    Bell, T. J., Crouzet, N., Cubillos, P. E., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 879

    2024

  5. [5]

    2015 [arXiv:1504.07655]

    Benneke, B. 2015 [arXiv:1504.07655]

    arXiv 2015

  6. [6]

    & Seager, S

    Benneke, B. & Seager, S. 2013, ApJ, 778, 153

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    S., Desidera, S., Benatti, S., et al

    Bonomo, A. S., Desidera, S., Benatti, S., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A107

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    A., Clarke, C

    Booth, R. A., Clarke, C. J., Madhusudhan, N., & Ilee, J. D. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 3994

    2017

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    M., Fischer, D

    Brewer, J. M., Fischer, D. A., & Madhusudhan, N. 2017, AJ, 153, 83, stellar C/O of HD 209458; check connection to formation history

    2017

  2. [10]

    2017, ApJ, 839, L2

    Brogi, M., Line, M., Bean, J., Désert, J.-M., & Schwarz, H. 2017, ApJ, 839, L2

    2017

  3. [11]

    & Line, M

    Brogi, M. & Line, M. R. 2019, AJ, 157, 114

    2019

  4. [12]

    2014, A&A, 564, A125

    Buchner, J., Georgakakis, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A125

    2014

  5. [13]

    & Sharp, C

    Burrows, A. & Sharp, C. M. 1999, ApJ, 512, 843–863

    1999

  6. [14]

    2020, in Euro- pean Planetary Science Congress, EPSC2020–811

    Casasayas-Barris, N., Palle, E., Stangret, M., Chen, G., & Yan, F. 2020, in Euro- pean Planetary Science Congress, EPSC2020–811

    2020

  7. [15]

    M., Latham, D

    Charbonneau, D., Brown, T. M., Latham, D. W., & Mayor, M. 2000, ApJ, 529, L45–L48

    2000

  8. [16]

    M., Noyes, R

    Charbonneau, D., Brown, T. M., Noyes, R. W., & Gilliland, R. L. 2002, ApJ, 568, 377–384

    2002

  9. [17]

    A., Yurchenko, S

    Coles, P. A., Yurchenko, S. N., & Tennyson, J. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4638

    2019

  10. [18]

    J., Dishoeck, E

    Cridland, A. J., Dishoeck, E. F. v., Alessi, M., & Pudritz, R. E. 2019, A&A, 632, A63

    2019

  11. [19]

    2013, ApJ, 774, 95

    Deming, D., Wilkins, A., McCullough, P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 774, 95

    2013

  12. [20]

    2023, Nature, 625, 51–54

    Dyrek, A., Min, M., Decin, L., et al. 2023, Nature, 625, 51–54

    2023

  13. [21]

    J., Miguel, Y ., Thorngren, D., & Murray-Clay, R

    Espinoza, N., Fortney, J. J., Miguel, Y ., Thorngren, D., & Murray-Clay, R. 2017, ApJ, 838, L9

    2017

  14. [22]

    D., Booth, R

    Feinstein, A. D., Booth, R. A., Bergner, J. B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.00669

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306

    2013

  16. [24]

    J., Mordasini, C., Nettelmann, N., et al

    Fortney, J. J., Mordasini, C., Nettelmann, N., et al. 2013, ApJ, 775, 80

    2013

  17. [25]

    2024, Nature, 632, 752

    Fu, G., Welbanks, L., Deming, D., et al. 2024, Nature, 632, 752

    2024

  18. [26]

    2021, Nature, 592, 205–208

    Giacobbe, P., Brogi, M., Gandhi, S., et al. 2021, Nature, 592, 205–208

    2021

  19. [27]

    & Wakeford, H

    Grant, D. & Wakeford, H. R. 2024, JOSS, 9, 6816

    2024

  20. [28]

    J., Gordon, I

    Hargreaves, R. J., Gordon, I. E., Rey, M., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 55

    2020

  21. [29]

    J., Tennyson, J., Kaminsky, B

    Harris, G. J., Tennyson, J., Kaminsky, B. M., Pavlenko, Y . V ., & Jones, H. R. A. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 400

    2006

  22. [30]

    & Lunine, J

    Helled, R. & Lunine, J. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 2273

    2014

  23. [31]

    W., Marcy, G

    Henry, G. W., Marcy, G. W., Butler, R. P., & V ogt, S. S. 2000, ApJ, 529, L41

    2000

  24. [32]

    W., & Patzer, A

    Kitzmann, D., Stock, J. W., & Patzer, A. B. C. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7263

    2024

  25. [33]

    2015, PASP, 127, 1161

    Kreidberg, L. 2015, PASP, 127, 1161

    2015

  26. [34]

    L., Désert, J.-M., et al

    Kreidberg, L., Bean, J. L., Désert, J.-M., et al. 2014, Nature, 505, 69

    2014

  27. [35]

    1993, Kurucz CD-Rom, 13

    Kurucz, R.-L. 1993, Kurucz CD-Rom, 13

    1993

  28. [36]

    2021, A&A, 645, A20

    Leconte, J. 2021, A&A, 645, A20

    2021

  29. [37]

    Line, M. R. & Parmentier, V . 2016, ApJ, 820, 78

    2016

  30. [38]

    R., Stevenson, K

    Line, M. R., Stevenson, K. B., Bean, J., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 203

    2016

  31. [39]

    MacDonald, R. J. & Madhusudhan, N. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 1979–1996

    2017

  32. [40]

    R., Deming, D., & Hedges, C

    Madhusudhan, N., Crouzet, N., McCullough, P. R., Deming, D., & Hedges, C. 2014, ApJ, 791, L9

    2014

  33. [41]

    J., & Barman, T

    Madhusudhan, N., Knutson, H., Fortney, J. J., & Barman, T. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 739–762

    2014

  34. [42]

    & Seager, S

    Madhusudhan, N. & Seager, S. 2009, ApJ, 707, 24

    2009

  35. [43]

    & Kempton, E

    Mbarek, R. & Kempton, E. M.-R. 2016, ApJ, 827, 121 Mollière, P., Molyarova, T., Bitsch, B., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 74 Mollière, P., Wardenier, J. P., van Boekel, R., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A67

    2016

  36. [44]

    C., Welbanks, L., McGill, P., & Kempton, E

    Nixon, M. C., Welbanks, L., McGill, P., & Kempton, E. M.-R. 2024, ApJ, 966, 156

    2024

  37. [45]

    Penzlin, A. B. T., Booth, R. A., Kirk, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 171

    2024

  38. [46]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 1485

    Pinhas, A., Madhusudhan, N., Gandhi, S., & MacDonald, R. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1485

    2019

  39. [47]

    E., Kupka, F., Ryabchikova, T

    Piskunov, N. E., Kupka, F., Ryabchikova, T. A., Weiss, W. W., & Jeffery, C. S. 1995, A&AS, 112, 525

    1995

  40. [48]

    L., Kyuberis, A

    Polyansky, O. L., Kyuberis, A. A., Zobov, N. F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2597

    2018

  41. [49]

    J., Fulton, B

    Rosenthal, L. J., Fulton, B. J., Hirsch, L. A., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 8

    2021

  42. [50]

    K., Fortney, J

    Sing, D. K., Fortney, J. J., Nikolov, N., et al. 2016, Nature, 529, 59

    2016

  43. [51]

    Snellen, I. A. G., de Kok, R. J., de Mooij, E. J. W., & Albrecht, S. 2010, Nature, 465, 1049

    2010

  44. [52]

    R., Tinetti, G., Vasisht, G., et al

    Swain, M. R., Tinetti, G., Vasisht, G., et al. 2009, ApJ, 704, 1616

    2009

  45. [53]

    2008, Contemporary Physics, 49, 71

    Trotta, R. 2008, Contemporary Physics, 49, 71

    2008

  46. [54]

    Tsai, S.-M., Lee, E. K. H., Powell, D., et al. 2023, Nature, 617, 483–487

    2023

  47. [55]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 264

    Tsai, S.-M., Malik, M., Kitzmann, D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 264

    2021

  48. [56]

    P., Zingales, T., et al

    Tsiaras, A., Waldmann, I. P., Zingales, T., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 156

    2018

  49. [57]

    S., Tennyson, J., Yurchenko, S

    Underwood, D. S., Tennyson, J., Yurchenko, S. N., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3890

    2016

  50. [58]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.04413

    Verma, A., Goyal, J., Avarsekar, S., & Shukla, G. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.04413

    2025

  51. [59]

    & Madhusudhan, N

    Welbanks, L. & Madhusudhan, N. 2021, ApJ, 913, 114

    2021

  52. [60]

    F., et al

    Welbanks, L., Madhusudhan, N., Allard, N. F., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, L20

    2019

  53. [61]

    H., et al

    Woitke, P., Helling, C., Hunter, G. H., et al. 2018, A&A, 614, A1

    2018

  54. [62]

    L., Zhang, M., et al

    Xue, Q., Bean, J. L., Zhang, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, L5

    2024

  55. [63]

    N., Mellor, T

    Yurchenko, S. N., Mellor, T. M., Freedman, R. S., & Tennyson, J. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 5282

    2020

  56. [64]

    model_ramp

    Zieba, S. & Kreidberg, L. 2022, JOSS, 7, 4838 Öberg, K. I. & Bergin, E. A. 2016, ApJ, 831, L19 Öberg, K. I., Murray-Clay, R., & Bergin, E. A. 2011, ApJ, 743, L16 Article number, page 15 of 22 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aa55577-25 Appendix A: Additional Figures and Tables Fig. ...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.